Get the latest Syracuse news delivered right to your inbox.
Subscribe to our newsletter here.

When Alpha Chi Rho sued Syracuse University in June after being suspended, the fraternity argued that university officials led a conduct proceeding riddled with errors. 

Most alarming to the fraternity and its lawyers was how one university official single-handedly changed the trajectory of the case. 

After a student alleged that members of the fraternity shouted a racial slur at a student, a University Conduct Board suspended Crow, claiming that a guest of the fraternity may have shouted the slur. But a University Appeals Board said no policy exists at SU that would make the fraternity responsible for the actions of a guest. The appeals board overturned the prior ruling and threw out the suspension.

A week later, Dolan Evanovich — who oversaw the conduct process and has since retired — rejected the board’s decision. He reinstated the suspension, saying “it was more likely than not that the guest used a racial slur.”

“According to section 11.9 of the Student Conduct System Handbook, I have the authority to overrule decisions of a University Appeals Board,” Evanovich wrote in an email to the fraternity before citing his supervisory authority over SU’s conduct system. 

A court ruled against SU and Evanovich on Wednesday, overturning his decision. 

The fraternity’s lawsuit is one of several against SU making their way through the state and federal court systems. The Daily Orange reviewed documents filed in lawsuits associated with seven different cases — police reports, emails, transcripts and confidential university documents that demonstrate SU’s wide-reaching disciplinary discretion and how it defends those policies in court.

Shannon Kirkpatrick | Presentation Director

The Office of Student Rights and Responsibilities processes approximately 3,000 conduct cases every year, according to a university official. The lawsuits provide just a small glimpse into the private hearings, as many students do not have the resources to take SU to court. The cases highlight key areas where students and their lawyers say SU most frequently strays from its policies or is stringent in applying them.

Christopher Burke, an attorney for Student Legal Services, said SU adheres to its processes and procedures “pretty regularly,” largely due to a section of its Student Conduct System Handbook that reserves the right for SU to modify its procedures at its own discretion.

“When you have that ability, then it’s kind of difficult to say that you really strayed from your rules,” Burke said. “I don’t think the issue is that they don’t follow their procedures … it’s (that) they can change it as they please with that one provision, and then the procedures are ‘fundamentally fair’ as they determine it to be.” 

Unlike student conduct offices at public colleges, OSRR is not bound by due process — a standard set by the courts — and instead utilizes “fundamental fairness,” which guarantees a student written notice and a hearing before their status at SU changes, barring a “significant threat.” 

Staff, faculty and administrators hear cases that range from underage drinking and public health violations to assault and Title IX violations. 

SU, like many private schools, must prove that students “more likely than not” violated university conduct codes to find them responsible for violations — a significantly lower threshold for proof than is used in court. 

Since SU isn’t a state entity, there’s also no case law, meaning one conduct ruling doesn’t set the precedent for another, Burke said. SU controls what evidence can be used in each hearing, and students must speak for themselves in each case.

In one lawsuit, a student argued that the university refused to consider text messages and other statements that would have shown racial bias in his case. In another, a student said the university failed to notify him that he could bring witnesses to his hearing. A student in a separate case argued that SU violated his rights when his conduct proceeding lasted 463 days — 403 days longer than the university’s own policies typically advise. 

The university can’t and doesn’t comment on individual conduct cases or pending litigation, said Sarah Scalese, senior associate vice president for university communications, in a statement.

In each case, SU provides students with notice of the alleged misconduct, an opportunity to be heard and an opportunity to appeal, Scalese said. Students also receive a handbook containing procedures for the conduct process. Every student is provided a fair process, she said.

A January lawsuit claims SU violated its own policies when it appointed one professor to act as investigator, judge and jury when looking into cheating allegations. Usually, the university’s academic integrity process, which is separate from OSRR, utilizes a five-member panel of students and employees. But the university changed its policies due to “emergency procedures” brought on by COVID-19. 

The student argued that the policies don’t explicitly allow officials to deny students a conduct hearing. But recent updates to the policy say that SU can modify academic integrity procedures to be resolved “as fairly and expeditiously as possible.” Both SU and the student voluntarily dismissed the case. 

Interim Vice Chancellor and Provost John Liu, who authorized the policy change, didn’t respond to a request for comment. 

Gregory Germain, a professor in the College of Law, recently organized a group of law students to act as procedural advisors in conduct proceedings. Most cases have to do with alleged violations of SU’s Stay Safe Pledge, a set of university guidelines related to COVID-19 public health orders, he said. The team of about 30 law students offers guidance to students who cannot bring outside attorneys or family members to hearings. 

---

More stories involving SU’s conduct proceedings process:

• Student suspended for delivering marijuana to quarantined friend sues SU
  
• Student accused of cheating sues SU for denying conduct hearing
  
• Student sues SU after suspension for alleged sexual assault
  
• SU places 23 students on interim suspension, some related to Quad gathering
  

---

“I think that’s the primary problem, is not having somebody independent questioning what the basis for the charge is,” Germain said. “And there are other problems. The rules are extremely vague, and they can mean whatever they want them to mean.”

Others say SU’s discretion allows it to be more fair than the courts. Walter Freeman, an associate teaching professor of physics, said that in the most serious cases — such as those involving assault or Title IX violations — discretionary processes help the university adapt to each case. 

“In cases involving a student hurting another student, we have a duty to our students to keep them safe and provide them a good environment,” said Freeman. “And if the criminal justice system is bad at it, we can’t just pass the buck and say ‘Oh, somebody hurt you? Go talk to the district attorney.’ We’ve got to do better than that.”

More than a decade ago, SU allowed outside counsel to act as procedural advisors for students. They could sit in at their hearings or walk students through the conduct process. Since then, the university modified its rules. Now, only SU students and employees can sit in on hearings not related to Title IX. Student Legal Services, which is independent from SU, was effectively shut out from conduct hearings, Burke said.

Students and other members of the public often expect hearings to mirror court proceedings, Burke said. When he tells students about the university conduct process, they’re “quite surprised.” When he tells parents, they’re “more surprised.” And when he talks to outside attorneys about the process, they’re “shocked.”

That’s because of how little they resemble formal court proceedings. 

Laura Bennett, Title IX coordinator at Nova Southeastern University and the former president of the Association for Student Conduct Administration, said the court process as seen on TV is often the only reference people have to understand university conduct proceedings. 

Conduct cases can be controversial, Bennett said, but universities have an obligation of fairness to all students involved in the conduct process.

“They’re both our students until one is not,” Bennett said. “Unfortunately, there are those cases where a complainant may choose to drop out of school or a respondent needs to be removed from school. But until that point, they’re both our students, so I think it’s on us to give the best process we can.”

Published on March 10, 2021 at 11:50 pm

Contact Michael: [email protected] | @MichaelSessa3